Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

astralcodexten.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#681

Post by Nursie »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #387
Nursie wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since 3 millions of vaccinations given out it could mean around 1 out of 6,000 deaths per vaccination. It could, or it could mean something else entirely, and it could be within normal trends. Which is what it looks like to me if all cause mortality is lower than 2019 levels. > So all in all, it wouldn't be possible for me to prove it even if vaccine was causing a lot of harm? Not from this data, no. > Because what…

> If you're thinking "I don't have easy access to that information, and I don't have the time or the funding to investigate", you're quite right. Medical researchers will have to carry the can here. Yeah, unfortunately, I've lost all my trust in anything that comes in from mainstream. I was to vaccinate myself, but then I found contradicting information, and from there I couldn't stop going to the rabbit hole, becaus…

> Mathematically and statistically...

...what you've identified is not enough to draw any conclusions from, at all.

> Either I'm crazy and worried about nothing

This one. The vaccine is not killing people in significant numbers, but the virus is. Stop worrying, get vaccinated, get on with life.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#682

Post by EdwardDiego »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #416
EdwardDiego wrote: post #37

My step-son was recently prescribed a small one off dose of ivermectin by a dermatologist to deal with a rather resistant case of scabies he acquired at a sports tournament. It took the pharmacy a couple of days to source, because signficant controls had to be put in place around prescribing it due to well, I'm just going to say what I think - the amazing capacity for the Internet to deliver dumbassery to people who…

The ironic part of this is that Ivermectin is not FDA approved for the treatment of scabies. Your doctor was prescribing it off label, based on personal judgement that it has therapeutic effect. That is not to say it doesn't work for scabies, I hope it worked for you.

On this, the CDC mention it as a last resort[1]. What's the role of FDA approval for usages of a drug in American law? Is my understanding correct that it's perfectly legal for physicians to prescribe off label, but you couldn't market ivermectin for the treatment of scabies to the public?

[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/scabies/health_professionals/m...

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#683

Post by dnautics »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #471
dnautics wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no they don't. They just need to be honest about what they do know and what they don't and don't assert something is true when it's "we're not sure". Just do zero-order thinking. Don't patronize the public. Guess what. If you don't trust the public. Why should the public trust you?

The public has been taught by people who don't do science that knowledge and truth are supposed to be immutable. When faced with scientists who acknowledge that their understanding and advice is contingent, the public as a statistical entity says "WTF?" and chooses not to trust.

You are bootstrapping your understanding of society on that assumption itself and thus begging the question.

Do you actually get out and talk to people? Most people are ok with nuance. Most things we consume as entertainment, from lowbrow housewives of Atlanta to highbrow pbs space time are full of dizzying nuance and unknowable truths (but not star trek. Star trek no longer has nuance).

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#684

Post by truffdog »

jacquesm wrote: post #586
azinman2 wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except in this case the dewormer is the central focus of the study. The relationship between worms in the population and its influence on covid outcomes makes that highly relevant to the publications. If it's known to be present in the general public, then not controlling for that in your study is just shoddy science.

More likely: a case of wishful thinking. Need miracle cure, found miracle cure, look no further.

Ivermectin being cheap and widely available is really important here. Something like that- instead of a novel vaccine made with novel tech in very specific first world factories- is very attractive to cash strapped governments and public health systems.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#685

Post by ikr678 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #369
idrios wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also why trust in these institutions is at an all time low. When your decision-makers are telling you lies and half truths for your own good, it becomes harder to know when they're telling the truth. This is the environment that causes fringe groups and theories to thrive.

Or why they don’t trust doctors in general, because medicine is a very inexact science filled with lies and half truths along with real truths? I get that might be unnerving to many (even if medicine is overall beneficial), but these people really sound like a classic case of “perfect is the enemy of good.”

Add 'hard truths' to that list too. Lifestyle & diet have a huge impact on health, but a portion of the population refuse to acknowledge this or want to hear about it from their doctor.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#686

Post by s1artibartfast »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #682
s1artibartfast wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ironic part of this is that Ivermectin is not FDA approved for the treatment of scabies. Your doctor was prescribing it off label, based on personal judgement that it has therapeutic effect. That is not to say it doesn't work for scabies, I hope it worked for you.

On this, the CDC mention it as a last resort[1]. What's the role of FDA approval for usages of a drug in American law? Is my understanding correct that it's perfectly legal for physicians to prescribe off label, but you couldn't market ivermectin for the treatment of scabies to the public? [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/scabies/health_professionals/m...

Basically correct.

You can't sell a drug unless it has at least one approval. Manufacturers can't advertise or say that it treats anything but the approved illness. Doctors can usually prescribe an approved drug for any other illness. Insurance may give people trouble for unapproved prescriptions.

Covid has further completed this, as pharmacies have started to refuse filling some prescriptions despite doctors orders.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#687

Post by unanswered »

yxwvut wrote: post #35

This article is a nice counterpoint to what's felt like a trend of Scott's writing (outside of psychology) increasingly becoming contrarianism in search of evidence. Many pieces he's written in the last 1-2 yrs feel like he'll use some back-of-the-envelope calculation to get some ballpark (associative) estimate of some relationship and then base a worldview around it (or work backwards from the latter to the former),…

> contrarianism in search of evidence

But that is literally what this article is, and Scott admits as much! He says that he chose worms as the most "trollish" possible response, despite a lack of any strong evidence at all that worms are the answer.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#688

Post by adrianN »

ncmncm wrote: post #506
adrianN wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock

You will notice that the word "malaria" does not appear in the article cited. It is, thus, non-responsive, and no better than noise. Anti-malarial medications are not antibiotics. Malaria has never responded to any antibiotic, to my knowledge. Maybe you don't know what malaria is?

I simply misparsed "those treatments" in your comment, thinking that they referred to antibiotics, which this threat is about after all. I'm aware that Malaria is not a bacterial infection.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#689

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

dnautics wrote: post #683
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public has been taught by people who don't do science that knowledge and truth are supposed to be immutable. When faced with scientists who acknowledge that their understanding and advice is contingent, the public as a statistical entity says "WTF?" and chooses not to trust.

You are bootstrapping your understanding of society on that assumption itself and thus begging the question. Do you actually get out and talk to people? Most people are ok with nuance. Most things we consume as entertainment, from lowbrow housewives of Atlanta to highbrow pbs space time are full of dizzying nuance and unknowable truths (but not star trek. Star trek no longer has nuance).

We're fine with nuance in entertainment, in romance, in food, in professional team sports, in many things. I would dispute that the same level of comfort extends to "when elected (or not) leaders tell us what we should do."

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#690

Post by unanswered »

Nursie wrote: post #136
jesterson wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However I think he misrepresent some anti-vaxxers: it's not a matter of trusting science, it's a matter of trusting scientists with heavy conflict of interest to tell the truth while most of us don't have the required scientific knowledge to evaluate if they're telling the truth. That's an excellent point - unfortunately people who are easily labeled as "anti-vaxxers" and perceived as uneducated anti-scince crowd q…

Studies have been done. It has been found lacking. You're getting mocked because you're blind to this and sticking to something that bad actors are touting as a miracle cure, while science and medicine move on in the search for things that actually help. Like dexamethasone, remdesivir etc etc

> Studies have been done. It has been found lacking.

TFA found that more reliable studies found it was helpful than not. You are the one who is anti-science.

Post reply on HN